Tuesday, June 03, 2008

The Best That Theists Can Provide?

Tingley seems to concede that there's no evidence for the Christian god. But that doesn't mean his god doesn't exist. Oh no! We must seek his god with our "heart". But what is the "heart"? Tingley says it isn't "feelings". But he doesn't say clearly what it is.

Tingley says the atheist can't distinguish between a god that doesn't exist and a god that does exist, but hides. But the theist can't distinguish between these alternatives, either. And a god that hides might just as well be no god at all, for how could we possibly know what that god did or what he/she wants? Maybe god really wants us all to be atheists, and salvation is reserved for those who don't believe.

The easiest way to see how Tingley's argument fails is to take his essay, and every time "God" appears, substitute "Odin":

"If we do not know that Odin even exists, we hardly know how he behaves. So we cannot begin this ascent with any dogmatic presumption about his behavior. Maybe, if he exists, Odin would show himself directly to our senses. But maybe he wouldn’t. Maybe he would hide from us..."

"What reason do I have to subordinate the possibility of Odin's existence to the powers of my senses?"

"All of the people who say that they are “atheists through skepticism, because they see no evidence that Odin exists,” are patently unthinking people, since by virtue of turning skeptic, no one has ever done anything—employed any logic, gathered any evidence, found any way forward—to reach a conclusion about whether Odin exists. So these atheists have not reached a conclusion; they have made a commitment."

If TIngley tried to use these kind of arguments to convince people that belief in Odin was justifiable, most would just laugh. And yet they are supposed to be good arguments against atheism and for his theism. Go figure.

Addendum: Does anyone else see the irony in someone insulting skepticism while teaching at an institution that demands the following statement of faith:

We subscribe without cavil to each of the clauses in the earliest general confession of the Church known as the Apostles' Creed:

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day He rose again. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic* Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

* "universal"

Yup, that sure sounds like someone who is committed to an impartial search for truth!

34 comments:

Kalia's little brother
said...

"They do not follow truth wherever they may find it. On the topic they have promised to illuminate, they are the defenders of Ptolemy in the age of Galileo: resisters and avoiders of scientific thought inflexibly wedded to their own commitments; and it is not hard to show this."

Ahem. Note to religious apologists: when writing about science and religion, it's best not to bring up the example of Galileo.

He could, but he does not. Instead, he has not a moment to waste on what it might mean to fail to discover a God who might exist, because he doesn’t really care what it would mean, and he doesn’t care because all that he can picture is a world without God. He wholly inhabits question-begging.

Not to religious apologists: while writing a question-begging essay, it is best not to remind the reader of the concept of question-begging. They might have their own ideas about how to apply it.

"skeptics...are patently unthinking people, since by virtue of turning skeptic, no one has ever done anything—employed any logic, gathered any evidence, found any way forward—to reach a conclusion..."

Is this another way of saying that atheists just don't try hard enough to make up some lame crap that would pass for s flimsy excuse to believe that an imaginary being exists. People, we have to overlook, ignore, employ wishful thinking and make believe. Use feelings as reliable proof of a god then deny that you are suggesting that this is what you are doing. The conclusion must be reached so don't give up.Yea, that's a true skeptic for ya. What horseshit.

Substituting 'Odin' in is a dirty trick, since he's not talking about any conception of a god to be found in any sort of text. As he notes, modern theologians have essentially given up on the idea of a temporal, benevolent being that most people worship, because they have found it to be incompatible with the actual world. That doesn't mean they're right.

They'd rather keep swimming in the aether because they feel God in their hearts. They'd rather believe there's something special out there for them instead of confronting the fact that we make ourselves special, that we are not anointed children of the universal Mho or whatever.

This 'available only to those who seek him' business is just another variation of the Pauline 'For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.' (1 Cor 1:18)

It's a shield to protect oneself from criticism by claiming to have special powers or tools that others don't. That can indeed be true. One can certainly have a better understanding of some subjects than others. It's why we give more credence to people with appropriate experience and education. This special power of the heart, though, is supposedly available to all. What about those of us (myself included) who have been seriously and devoutly religious, sought for God in ways both concrete and ethereal, and in the end, found in our hearts nothing of His existence? Is our 'heart' (soul?) defective somehow? Was our sincerity not strong enough?

I particularly like how he says "By a “skeptic” I mean a person who believes that in some particular arena of desired knowledge we just cannot have knowledge of the foursquare variety that we get elsewhere, and who sees no reason to bolster that lack with willful belief". Sure, he's completely correct, if you redefine skeptic to have no connection to what the other is generally understood to mean.

I can prove the Riemann Hypothesis, and by “Riemann Hypothesis” I mean that 1+1=2.

[atheists through skepticism] are patently unthinking people, since by virtue of turning skeptic, no one has ever done anything ... to reach a conclusion about whether Odin exists. So these atheists have not reached a conclusion; they have made a commitment."

How ridiculous. Of course skeptics think about the question of whether God exists. The whole statement is just an encapsulation of his own erroneous God-affirming beliefs about atheists/skeptics. He's just making an unsubstantiated claim that 'once you call yourself a [fill in the blank]' then you never ever consider the possibility that you might be wrong - but that's only true if [fill in the blank] is "atheist".

Where are the good arguments for gods? The good summaries of modern theology where the terms are defined, the arguments are consistent, the ... goals of the exercise, if you like, are explained.

Because the arguments I've been exposed to are nonsense. Literal nonsense. I'm reading an ongoing discussion in another blog where a Christian theologian claims *all* theists think of their god as a fictional character 'like Captain Kirk' and that the value is in the role model, inspirational side of things. I think. He's a bit vague on what the point is.

That's Colin McGinn's post-theism, not Christianity. It's atheism, not theism. More to the point, it's bollocks: over 70% of US fundamentalists think Christ will return in their lifetime. They don't mean 'in a JJ Abrams movie'.

He's just not describing anything that anyone does, has, will, should or could worship.

But that's some guy with a blog. So ... where's the real deal?

OK, put it this way: I've got a doctorate in English. I can read words and understand them and appreciate nuance and all that sort of stuff. It also means I knew nothing about science. I never had any doubt about evolution, but couldn't really explain how an eye could evolve.

Then. Dawkins. Explained.

I read The Selfish Gene. He went through it, step by step, explained how the metaphors were often misleading, how the anthromorphic stuff led to frequent misunderstandings, how it happens over timescales we just aren't wired up to cope with.

I now know how an eye evolved. Or, if we're being pedantic, how one modern evolutionary biologist says they probably did.

Point is ... someone took the time to explain it to me.

Theism ... modern theology. Is it just a mystery religion? Is the *point* the curtain, not what's behind it?

Or ... are there just loads of brilliant books and lecturers that I've somehow managed to avoid? I'm relatively smart, I want a relatively smart book. Such a thing exists, surely? If so ... names and ISBN numbers, please.

If not ... someone write it, you'd make a fortune. Someone write a book that's like The Selfish Gene, but for theology. Something that just goes through it, step by step and shows the working.

When the smart scientist of the seventeenth century was asked, “Is clear water pure?” he did not go with his gut and answer “yes” or “no.” “The naked eye says yes,” he answered, “but is there an instrument better than the naked eye with which to see?” We need to listen to the scientist who claims that there is, and that scientist is Pascal.

Hmm, I think I'd hedge my wager and go with Leeuwenhoek on that one, no?

'The saddest thing about Christian theology is that Aquinas was probably their best and greatest thinker, and he's been dead 700 years.'

This is my instinct, too. Theology doesn't seem to have moved on or solved any of the big problems. There's no better, more compelling answer (if you're a theist, anyway) to the question 'why does god allow bad things?' now as a thousand years ago.

Whereas I can see progress and breakthroughs and achievement in all the other arts and sciences. Practically every year.

On another board I asked a theologian what the last, big new thing in theology was and he said 'the meme'. Says it all, really.

But ... I'm not arrogant. I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and say it's a problem with my reading list, not theology. We'll see.

OK. I know this was a big joke over at PZ's blog, but at least they managed to execute it well. When done without skill or any apparent sarcasm, it just makes you look like a crappy me-too wannabe. Shut it.

'The saddest thing about Christian theology is that Aquinas was probably their best and greatest thinker, and he's been dead 700 years.'

This is my instinct, too. Theology doesn't seem to have moved on or solved any of the big problems.

I always thought Pascal was a great Christian thinker, as well as a scientist. He's only been dead for 350 years:) His ideas, though, were way ahead of his time, which is why Tingley writes about him now. As Tingley notes, Pascal actually rejected the proofs of the existence of God given by Aquinas and others in the middle ages. He wrote more to the modern skeptic and his writings are more relevant today than they were in his own time. So perhaps it is not fair to say Theology has not moved on. This, I think, is one of the points Tingley's article is trying to make. In particular, as I read him, he's saying that modern skeptics don't have a good answer to Pascal.

The difficulty with reading Pascal is that he died before he was able to finish his apology of the Christian religion. Therefore his arguments are fragmented and easily misunderstood. The wager is a classic example. To piece together the common threads in his arguments based on his fragmented writings takes a lot of work.

There's no better, more compelling answer (if you're a theist, anyway) to the question 'why does god allow bad things?' now as a thousand years ago.

I've heard modern apologists say that evil poses a challenge to atheists as well. In particular, they say, the atheist has no basis for even calling something evil. It's not, as some say, that atheists are inevitably bad people. Rather, the atheist ultimately has no ground for arguing why he should be good as opposed to bad. I know this may not be a "new" argument. Still, I think it shows that the problem of evil is a problem for theists and atheists alike.

I always thought Pascal was a great Christian thinker, as well as a scientist... So perhaps it is not fair to say Theology has not moved on. ... In particular, as I read him, he's saying that modern skeptics don't have a good answer to Pascal.

Sorry then, he failed miserably to make that case. And what do mean by "moved on"? It may be true that some apologists have abandoned the old, unsuccessful arguments (while others haven't). This is not the same as having formulated new and convincing rational arguments.

The difficulty with reading Pascal is that he died before he was able to finish his apology of the Christian religion. Therefore his arguments are fragmented and easily misunderstood. The wager is a classic example. To piece together the common threads in his arguments based on his fragmented writings takes a lot of work.

Pascal's wager, as I've seen it stated, has a great number of weaknesses. Don't tell us how great it could have been, show us. Reformulate it in a way that is rational and convincing. Otherwise, you're just talking the talk without being able to walk the walk.

I've heard modern apologists say that evil poses a challenge to atheists as well. In particular, they say, the atheist has no basis for even calling something evil. It's not, as some say, that atheists are inevitably bad people. Rather, the atheist ultimately has no ground for arguing why he should be good as opposed to bad. I know this may not be a "new" argument. Still, I think it shows that the problem of evil is a problem for theists and atheists alike.

I've heard modern apologists say a great many things that do not make sense. This is not only not a new argument, it is not a good argument. You seem to be confusing two questions. The problem of evil is "why does evil exist (in a world purportedly created by an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God)?" You seem to be confusing this with a different question, "why should I treat others well?"

Apparently you hold some favoritism for the theistic position. This is not the same as being able to formulate rational and convincing arguments in its defense.

I've heard modern apologists say that evil poses a challenge to atheists as well.

Well, I've heard modern atheologists say that the Problem of Evil would be a problem for the theist, even if there were no atheists! Because it concerns an apparent contradiction between omniscience, benevolence and the existence of evil. Even if there were no atheists to point this out, it would be presented in an academic fashion by some modern day Gaunilo the Fool, in the spirit of the devil's advocate.

The problem of justifying the application of terms like good and evil is a different problem that really affects everybody, not just atheists. The atheist has to skirt the shoals of the Naturalistic Fallacy, but the theist is faced with Euthyrpo's Dilemma, which is similar. Is x good because God wills it, or does God will it because it's good. How do we bridge the gap between the "objective fact of God's will" (as expessed in Holy Writ, for example), and the application of the term good, which is a normative, not a positive category. Kiekegaard based an entire work on the question "Can there be a teleological suspension of the ethical?" That is, if God ordered you to sacrifice your son would you be obliged to do it, in spite of any normal ethical considerations, such as personal loyalty or a prohibition against murder? This is not really irrelevant, either. It is plain that some of the 911 conspirators believed they were called to action by dreams.

'I've heard modern apologists say that evil poses a challenge to atheists as well. In particular, they say, the atheist has no basis for even calling something evil.'

I don't think there's 'evil' in the sense that there's 'gravity'. There are actions that are disproportionately harmful or unhelpful or spiteful or selfish. But done by human beings with some degree of choice, not little demons driving them around.

I'm an atheist ... one question that I find difficult to answer is sort of related to that - 'free will'. Not really sure what the source of free will is. I don't think I live in a completely deterministic universe, at the same time I wonder if the universe is just so complex that I only have the illusion of (some) autonomy and choice.

And I think I've got much more free will in an atheistic universe than in a theistic universe where God would know both what I'm going to do and what I should have done.

In the end ... I think it's probably just a very poorly phrased question.

Apparently you hold some favoritism for the theistic position. This is not the same as being able to formulate rational and convincing arguments in its defense.

I do favor theism.

Pascal's wager, as I've seen it stated, has a great number of weaknesses. Don't tell us how great it could have been, show us. Reformulate it in a way that is rational and convincing.

If you want to hear a reformulation of the Pensees, I don't think it will come from me. I won't pretend to be qualified to do such a monstrous task. However, others have done so, and I would refer you to the book by J. Menard called, "Pascal". He goes through the Pensees and pieces together the argument. His point about the wager that many atheists misinterpret is that Pascal did not see the wager as conversion. Rather, it was one step in the process. To Pascal, faith was above reason, but not contrary to reason. In his apology he planned to go to great lengths to demonstrate the insufficiency of reason as a means to find God. The chief end of reason was to bow its knee and acknowledge that there are "an infinity of things beyond it." However, Pascal also thought faith was "above reason, but not contrary to it." Therefore, once Pascal had convinced the skeptic of the insufficiency of reason alone to find God, he appealed to reason to show that it was reasonable to wager that God exists. Pascal never saw the wager as conversion. Rather, it was an invitation to go further in the search for God.

Another point that atheists make about the wager is that it doesn't tell you which God to believe in. Clearly Pascal meant the Christian God, but there are a good number of later Pensees in which Pascal tries to show the skeptic who has taken the wager the truth of Christianity over other religions, like Islam, Buddhism, etc.

These are just a few examples of what I meant when I said that the wager was "misunderstood". My point was not to get people to accept the wager. The point I was really trying to make is that Pascal was a great Christian thinker and deserves recognition right alongside Aquinas.

I've heard modern apologists say a great many things that do not make sense. This is not only not a new argument, it is not a good argument. You seem to be confusing two questions. The problem of evil is "why does evil exist (in a world purportedly created by an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God)?" You seem to be confusing this with a different question, "why should I treat others well?"

Well, I've heard modern atheologists say that the Problem of Evil would be a problem for the theist, even if there were no atheists!

I agree that the problem of evil is a problem for Theism. Again, I'm sorry to say that I don't have any new answers to the question. I know a lot of the answers that are out there, but I must confess that while I see validity in some of those answers, I haven't heard any answers that completely satisfy me.

On the other hand, if problem of evil were to lead me to reject Theism, then I think I would be faced with even more problems. If I reject Theism, then it seems to me that there is no basis for calling anything evil. Thus, I don't think I was confusing two questions. Either position, theism or atheism, has difficult questions regarding evil. They may be slightly different questions, but I am more comfortable with the Theistic position, because I believe that evil exists, even if I don't completely understand why.

'I am more comfortable with the Theistic position, because I believe that evil exists, even if I don't completely understand why.'

I appreciate this is a difficult question, but in what sense do you think it 'exists'?

As some sort of - for want of a less crude analogy - force like gravity; or as a human construct like, er, racism? Racism 'exists', but not like magnetism 'exists'.

Either way, there's a big problem for the theist that the atheist doesn't have - even if evil exists like magnetism exists, even if it (I know this isn't what Christians believe) radiates from the Devil's body ... why does God allow it?

It's a problem even if you just say 'bad things' not 'evil'. Why does God allow earthquakes to kill tens of thousands of people? To a atheist, the answer is simple: 'for the same reason Superman doesn't save them'.

I appreciate that this isn't exactly the first time someone has raised this issue ... the thing is, theology seems further away than ever from coming up with a coherent response. Back in the middle ages, people were comfortable with the 'he is punishing unbelievers' argument. Now, that just seems capricious.

When it comes up on the theology boards I'm on, theologians just roll their eyes and go 'that old chestnut', like that's an answer. People keep asking the question because it's still a killer.

Another point that atheists make about the wager is that it doesn't tell you which God to believe in. Clearly Pascal meant the Christian God, but there are a good number of later Pensees in which Pascal tries to show the skeptic who has taken the wager the truth of Christianity over other religions, like Islam, Buddhism, etc.

1) How convenient for him that what he considered to be the One True Religion is the one he was raised in. 2) Everyone knows that Jainism is the best religion.

On the other hand, if problem of evil were to lead me to reject Theism, then I think I would be faced with even more problems. If I reject Theism, then it seems to me that there is no basis for calling anything evil. Thus, I don't think I was confusing two questions. Either position, theism or atheism, has difficult questions regarding evil. They may be slightly different questions, but I am more comfortable with the Theistic position, because I believe that evil exists, even if I don't completely understand why.

The two questions are not slightly different, they are very different. You might want to look into autonomous ethics.

The problem of evil is no problem at all for the atheist: evil things hurt people. You shouldn't do them because of fear of retaliation (if you are emotionally immature) or because you recognize that hurting people, well, hurts people. The idea that we can't determine what's evil without some celestial overlord beating us when we do bad is just the childish refuge of antisocial minds.

I'm an atheist ... the problem of evil *as theists often define it* is a problem for atheists.

I don't think that there are things that are objectively evil. I think there are almost certainly things that virtually every human being would agree was harmful and wrong.

But ... what's to say that something is wrong or harmful or evil? A theist would say 'ultimately, God'.

So ... the ultimate argument is the *source* of good and evil.

As an atheist, I don't think there's 'good and evil' so much as 'right and wrong' or 'creation and destruction'. Moreover, I think labelling things as good or evil is actively dangerous a lot of the time. You end up with smart, calm people like CS Lewis saying it was OK to burn witches even if they weren't witches.

The US fundies who quote Lewis a lot should probably also be aware that he felt no true Christian could ever live in a Republic.

But ... what's to say that something is wrong or harmful or evil? A theist would say 'ultimately, God'.

Not all theists would say that. Because if God decides what is good and what is bad, then it is completely arbitrary, isn't it? If God told you that slavery, wife-beating and genocide were good (and come to think of it, that's what the God of the Old Testament did), then they would be good.

Read up on autonomous ethics. See for example The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. Michael Martin, (2006, ISBN-13 978-0521603676) Chapter 9: The Autonomy of Ethics by David O. Brink, to see a case for the acceptance of autonomous ethics even by theists.

I appreciate this is a difficult question, but in what sense do you think it 'exists'?

As some sort of - for want of a less crude analogy - force like gravity; or as a human construct like, er, racism? Racism 'exists', but not like magnetism 'exists'.

I don't believe evil is a force, like gravity. I guess I would say evil is more of an adjective. I believe that there are objective ethical criteria by which we can call something good or evil. That criteria does not have to come from the Bible, by the way. Enlightenment thinkers chose to call it "natural law". There are gray areas, to be sure, but I believe there are also definite standards.

The problem of evil is no problem at all for the atheist: evil things hurt people. You shouldn't do them because of fear of retaliation (if you are emotionally immature) or because you recognize that hurting people, well, hurts people.

If an atheist believes that you shouldn't hurt people, then I would call that atheist a good person. However, I think there needs to be a way of saying that everyone ought to be good. Otherwise we may feel justified to do wrong or act selfishly as long as we can control the outcomes. eg, adultery will be fine as long as the people involved can guarantee that nobody will find out. I know some people believe this way, but I would think that most atheists would believe that adultery is wrong.

You end up with smart, calm people like CS Lewis saying it was OK to burn witches even if they weren't witches.

If you are referring to Mere Christianity here I don't think Lewis is saying it was OK to burn witches.

The US fundies who quote Lewis a lot should probably also be aware that he felt no true Christian could ever live in a Republic.

'The US fundies who quote Lewis a lot should probably also be aware that he felt no true Christian could ever live in a Republic.

Do you have reference for that?'

It's from 'Equality':

“There, right in the midst of our lives, is that which satisfies the craving for inequality, and acts as a permanent reminder that medicine is not food. Hence a man’s reaction to monarchy is a kind of test. Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.”

'But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did — if we really thought that there were people going around who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbors or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did.'